SANTA'S WISH LIST....2026 version

[Ralph Damren]

Ah. Well, that’s different. As y’all know, I’m NCAA, but, I did a ‘Google’ search for NFHS football extra period, and the “all knowing” information said the extra period starts at the B-25 - no mention of that being a ‘suggestion.’ Is that ‘suggestion,’ then, left up to each crew on a game-by-game basis? Each state?

Each state may set their own OT procedure. At last count ,a high majority used the NFHS prototype. I was (un)lucky enough to work a then-NFHS record-setting 6 OT game back in Nov. 1983 . It resembled a frat house 'mud-bowl', and no one could score until the 6th. I see the advantage of NCAA's adjustment to prevent such.

[ElvisLives]

Each state may set their own OT procedure. At last count ,a high majority used the NFHS prototype. I was (un)lucky enough to work a then-NFHS record-setting 6 OT game back in Nov. 1983 . It resembled a frat house 'mud-bowl', and no one could score until the 6th. I see the advantage of NCAA's adjustment to prevent such.

Thanks, Ralph. Didn’t mean to hijack, just wanted a little clarity, and you gave it. Done.

[SCline]

3-1-1

By state association adoption, if, at the end of the fourth period, the teams have identical scores, the tie may be resolved if a method has been approved by the state high school association. This may include extending playing time. The overtime is considered part of the fourth period. An example of an overtime procedure is located in a supplementary section following the rules.

[Ralph Damren]

Ah. Well, that’s different. As y’all know, I’m NCAA, but, I did a ‘Google’ search for NFHS football extra period, and the “all knowing” information said the extra period starts at the B-25 - no mention of that being a ‘suggestion.’ Is that ‘suggestion,’ then, left up to each crew on a game-by-game basis? Each state?

Each state can set their own guidelines for OT. I belive a couple use the NCAA version. Your info may have came from one of those states. Here's the quote from our NFHS book  : "Each state association ...may adopt a procedure by which it allows games tied after the fourth period to be resolved. The  following is one possible procedure which would allow for ties to be broken. This procedure may be ACCEPTED AS WRITTEN,AMENDED,OR REJECTED, IN WHOLE OR PART,BY EACH MEMBER STATE ASSOCIATION."

[Ralph Damren]

There is a  "suggestion" involved in sub-varsity games.    We are to gather both coaches prior to the game iF they want to play overtime ,if needed. This was a response to this question several years ago...

ME: "Do you guys want to play overtime if needed  ?"

HOME COACH :" Ayuh, 'spect so  "

VISITING COACH :" Guess it depends what 'da score is... "

ME : "Auh...I guess the score would be tied    "

VISITING COACH : " iN THAT CASE, ayuh 'spect so, too  "

HOME TEAM WON, 30-0 

[toma]

In Mass we have an OT procedure that is a carryover from when we were still using NCAA. It has issues, There's a change of possession; B recovers a fumble or intercepts a pass and on the return run there's a foul by A;
Ruling: Team B has the option of extending the overtime period for one down free of penalty, with Team B putting the ball in play where the penalty leaves the ball, provided Team B has not fouled during the down. Or Team B may choose to penalize as a dead ball foul at the succeeding spot in the subsequent overtime period.
Then; What if Happens B fumbles and A recovers?  A-B-A Ruling; A starts a new series 1st and goal from wherever A is tackled.
Not to worry that hasn't happened YET.
But the future looks bright for use. The State MIAA football committee is moving forward to change to the NFHS OT procedures for the 2026 season

[SCHSref]

Response from NFHS on HTR POE. The intent is to remind that the 'tush push' isn't allowable in NFHS. If it occurs in a NFHS game, the play should be blown dead as THE RUNNER'S FORWARD PROGRESS has stopped.

So, I'm guessing they don't want the flag thrown for heloing the runner with te Tush Push. Is the same said when the runner is pulled forward by a teammate? Are we to blow it dead?

[Ralph Damren]

In Mass we have an OT procedure that is a carryover from when we were still using NCAA. It has issues, There's a change of possession; B recovers a fumble or intercepts a pass and on the return run there's a foul by A;
Ruling: Team B has the option of extending the overtime period for one down free of penalty, with Team B putting the ball in play where the penalty leaves the ball, provided Team B has not fouled during the down. Or Team B may choose to penalize as a dead ball foul at the succeeding spot in the subsequent overtime period.
Then; What if Happens B fumbles and A recovers?  A-B-A Ruling; A starts a new series 1st and goal from wherever A is tackled.
Not to worry that hasn't happened YET.
But the future looks bright for use. The State MIAA football committee is moving forward to change to the NFHS OT procedures for the 2026 season

I understood the then Rules Committee put several hours puting togather the NFHS overtime procedure. In Maine, we didn't feel it necessary to re-invent the wheel. IMHO, allowing B to score in either OT or a PAT would need a laundry list of "what-ifs" tht could occur after COP. Let's keep it simple.

[Ralph Damren]

So, I'm guessing they don't want the flag thrown for heloing the runner with te Tush Push. Is the same said when the runner is pulled forward by a teammate? Are we to blow it dead?

IMHO, the POE would still flag pulling/dragging/carrying the runner. The 'tush push' would kill the play AS the runner's FORWARD PROGRESS has stopped.

[Snapper]

As someone who usually abhors excessive rule changes, I'm thrilled.

I just wish that they would cleanup their illegal substitution and illegal participation rules.  Especially for a receiver accidentally stepping oob.  It’s currently just dumb.

Other than that, I agree that it’s probably best not to let the editorial committee anywhere near a word processor…

[Ralph Damren]

I just wish that they would cleanup their illegal substitution and illegal participation rules.  Especially for a receiver accidentally stepping oob.  It’s currently just dumb.

Other than that, I agree that it’s probably best not to let the editorial committee anywhere near a word processor…

There was a proposl on the docket to reduce IP to 5 yards. It never made it our of it's sub-committee.

[ncwingman]

There was a proposl on the docket to reduce IP to 5 yards. It never made it our of it's sub-committee.

Obviously I don't know exactly what the proposal said, but just globally lowering it to 5 yards doesn't make sense. I think participating with 12 or having a player come on after the snap should be a different category than an otherwise legal player going out of bounds briefly/accidentally.

If a receiver is running a route and he's not really blocked out of bounds, but runs a little wide to avoid the defender, during which a foot hits the white one time -- the advantage he's gaining is not proportional to a 15 yard penalty.

Tangentially related, back in Super Bowl XLIII, James Harrison ran an interception back 100 yards. Larry Fitzgerald tried to run him down and ran *out of bounds* from about the 50 down to the goal line. I think I understand why that wasn't a foul by the rules, but I don't understand why that wouldn't be a foul. If the idea is that players need to stay in the field of play (and end zones) during the down, why don't they actually need to attempt to stay in the field of play (or return as quickly as possible)?

[bossman72]

Obviously I don't know exactly what the proposal said, but just globally lowering it to 5 yards doesn't make sense. I think participating with 12 or having a player come on after the snap should be a different category than an otherwise legal player going out of bounds briefly/accidentally.

The difference between participating with 12 (live ball 15) or illegal substitution (dead ball 5 yards) is how fast the officials get their count.  Dependent on nothing else.  Our slowness can cost a team an extra 10 yards.  That's what the rule change was aiming to fix.

12th player running on after the snap would still be Illegal Participation, live ball, 15 yards.

If a receiver is running a route and he's not really blocked out of bounds, but runs a little wide to avoid the defender, during which a foot hits the white one time -- the advantage he's gaining is not proportional to a 15 yard penalty.

Agree.  This is way too punitive.  You can roll this into illegal touching if you wanted to.  You would just be left with the conundrum of "does he lose pass eligibility?".  Currently he does not with the IP rule.  So today, if you step on the sideline, then the DB interferes with you catching the ball, they would offset.  If you change it to Illegal Touching, would they still offset or would you make him ineligible when he steps OOB?  This would also delete a football fundamental.

Tangentially related, back in Super Bowl XLIII, James Harrison ran an interception back 100 yards. Larry Fitzgerald tried to run him down and ran *out of bounds* from about the 50 down to the goal line. I think I understand why that wasn't a foul by the rules, but I don't understand why that wouldn't be a foul. If the idea is that players need to stay in the field of play (and end zones) during the down, why don't they actually need to attempt to stay in the field of play (or return as quickly as possible)?

I have a rule change written up to re-write IP that address both of these, but I figured there's other things that need to be submitted before this long winded one.  But let me know if you think this would address everything.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m03iN9klsQptpWvsIrUClDJXMfIxKxLv/edit?usp=drivesdk&ouid=115846223743828963000&rtpof=true&sd=true

[Ralph Damren]

Last year Steve Shaw, the NCAA Football Rules Editor addressed our national meeting. His major message was : KEEP IT SIMPLE  . He went on to explain high school sports officials are during this as more of a hobby than a vocation/advocation and we need to beware of the possible complexity. To many of us, who had just passed a near rewrite of Rule 10 the previous year, it made sense. Last year, a rewrite of the IP rule failed on the floor. This year, a good proposal regarding IP>SP didn't make it out of sub-committee.

While I strongly agree that a reciever accidently stepping on OOB line shouldn't be hit with 15, we need to make changes that are simplistically understood. I once heard that there was 75+ exceptions in the NCAA book compared to 16 exceptions in ours. I assume the ratio is still somewhat similar.

[ElvisLives]

I once heard that there was 75+ exceptions in the NCAA book compared to 16 exceptions in ours.

Oh, you’ve done it now. I will have an accurate count for you by the end of the day. My wages are on GREATER than 75, but we shall see.

[ElvisLives]

115

Counting only the “labeled” Exceptions, there are no less than 115 Exceptions, just in Rules 1 through 10. I didn’t even look at 11,12, or Part II of the book. I say, “…no less than…,” because there are some labeled exceptions that may actually contain more than one distinct difference, depending on conditions. I didn’t try to decipher those conditional differences, so the true number of exceptions is, no doubt, somewhat more than 115, in practice.
No. Not easy. That’s why we get the big bucks.

[SCHSref]

Last year Steve Shaw, the NCAA Football Rules Editor addressed our national meeting. His major message was : KEEP IT SIMPLE  . He went on to explain high school sports officials are during this as more of a hobby than a vocation/advocation and we need to beware of the possible complexity. To many of us, who had just passed a near rewrite of Rule 10 the previous year, it made sense. Last year, a rewrite of the IP rule failed on the floor. This year, a good proposal regarding IP>SP didn't make it out of sub-committee.

While I strongly agree that a reciever accidently stepping on OOB line shouldn't be hit with 15, we need to make changes that are simplistically understood. I once heard that there was 75+ exceptions in the NCAA book compared to 16 exceptions in ours. I assume the ratio is still somewhat similar.

Well, we don't have 3k a game like the power 4 conferences. We don't even make $300 a game, so yes, people take it as a hobby, but that doesn't mean that we don't try to be our best at it.

[ncwingman]

Well, we don't have 3k a game like the power 4 conferences. We don't even make $300 a game, so yes, people take it as a hobby, but that doesn't mean that we don't try to be our best at it.

We barely make $100 a game... but we're getting a raise next year (allegedly) that I think will take us all the way up to $109.

I'm certainly not doing it for the money, but my fall hobby makes enough to cover my spring hobby expenses.

[bossman72]

So I have an actual question for this change...

Does this foul encompass "hands to the face" fouls?  If a blocker or defender pins his opponents head back for a prolonged period of time, is that 15 yards under this foul?

Does anyone have an answer for this?

[ncwingman]

Does anyone have an answer for this?

I believe the answer is "No", as in "Nobody has the answer for that". Based on previous years, rule changes are voted on the concept of a rule, but then the actual rule might be something completely different or unintended.

If I was a betting man, I'd figure they're just going to strike the word "defensive" from 9-4-7 which still requires a "slap". Is a push a slap? I don't think it would qualify. However, case play 9-4-7B currently has a foul when B1 "contacts ... with an open hand to the head" which seems to imply that it would be any contact to the head, not just a "slap" - but case play 9.2.3B part C has B1 contacting A1's helmet in an attempt to ward off a block, and it is not a foul.

I'm personally surprised that the NFL style "hands to the face" is not explicitly in the rule book. That seems like a safety issue that would get filtered down.

[Ralph Damren]

IMHO, a stiff-arm by a ball carrier to a defender's helmet when he is trying to make the tackle, isn't a foul.

[NVFOA_Ump]

IMHO, a stiff-arm by a ball carrier to a defender's helmet when he is trying to make the tackle, isn't a foul.

Agreed that a "stiff-arm" to ward of tackle is legal, but reaching back and firing out with a forceful blow to the helmet/facemask is a 15 yard PF.

[AlUpstateNY]

"Beauty IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER" as unfortunately/fortunately can be a "PROBLEM" and it is the JUDGMENT of that beholder whether what is being actually observed is allowable, or excessive and deserving of being a violation.

[NVFOA_Ump]

"Beauty IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER" as unfortunately/fortunately can be a "PROBLEM" and it is the JUDGMENT of that beholder whether what is being actually observed is allowable, or excessive and deserving of being a violation.

Thanks Al, that was very abstract.   

[bossman72]

IMO "hands to the face" has always been inconsistently interpreted between making it a 10 or 15 yard foul.